The harassment is more indicative of pirates' behavior than what is expect from a professional PLA Navy and its sailors—at one point the Chinese ships blocked passage and pretended to ram (“playing chicken”) the USNS Impeccable.

The Chinese ship came within 75 25 yards feet3 of the USNS Impeccable, which responded by spraying the ships with its fire hoses. This is not the first time2 China has wrongfully asserted its territorial 12 mile rights within its 200 mile economic rights zone—within 12 mile the “right of transit” does not include surveillance and mapping rights—outside 12 miles the "right of transit" does include surveillance and mapping rights. In addition to the formal protest, these unnecessary provocations can be put on the agenda of the recently restarted China-American military-military talks and working group.

It's difficult to think of big power nations working hard together to complete a quality bilateral investment treaty as a relationship on a bad path. A multidimensional relationship that captivates, confounds, and challenges, sure, but that's not bad!

Constructively and responsibly participating in today's global community and commons means nations must recognize, respect, and abide by awards and rulings of proper international tribunals. Referring to designated and recognized international tribunal proceedings as a "farce" (趣剧; qùjù) is to incrementally replace the rule of law with the rule of force.

Survey data are necessary (kudos to Carnegie/Pew) but insufficient to understand the first principles that lead to conflict avoidance.

It does not seem particularly novel for a survey to discover that a collection of individuals (nation) apply the cultural identity they learn. Unusual would be the survey that discovered a collection of individuals that assert they prefer applying a continually changing cosmopolitan cultural identity to an "exceptional cultural identity"!

Chinese military officers, at all levels (in addition to Chinese military scholars) must participate in future Carnegie/Pew US-China Security Perceptions Project surveys. Saluting expressions of "exceptionalism" will not produce the cosmopolitan changes required for close cooperation between China and America.

Our global problems are too ginormous to waste much time saluting reciprocal and meaningless expressions of "cultural exceptionalism" by either American or Chinese leaders!

Finally, claimants begin refining their claims for presentation before a formal UNCLOS tribunal—claims that unsurprisingly sound similar to claims made between acrimonious divorcees dividing up property of dubious valuation using tangled logic meaningful only to each individual divorcee asserting the claim.

There is nothing novel about an authoritarian bully-nation expressing support for another authoritarian bully-nation's bullying. What's novel is a global community's willingness to immediately and progressively begin isolating (physically and economically) bullies before they become a menace.

"If we're truly concerned about China's actions in the South China Sea ... the Senate should help strengthen our case by approving the Law of the Sea convention, as our military leaders have urged," Obama said in a commencement speech to the U.S. Air Force Academy." VOA dated June 06, 2106

There are a diminishing number zealous ideologues in our Senate (maybe fewer after the next general election), which zealously believe becoming a party to any and all (not just UNCLOS) international agreements harms our nation.

These zealots often mistakenly conflate use of force with leadership and often substitute slogans for substantive reasoning or analysis, too.

Asserting that unobstructed access to all international waters, including the East and South China Seas has nothing to do with global economics is like asserting that China's Yi minority children have a path to and from school.

Constructing stairs, which facilitates education will likely be more useful than constructing islands!

No, the United States does not need more naval assets to counter China's current maritime assertions. Yes, a naval incident is likely before China and the United States learn to play nice on the South and East China Sea playground.

It's encouraging both nations are citing UNCLOS, if somewhat selectively (China denies UNCLOS jurisdiction and the United States refuses to sign ratify UNCLOS) to support their playground (mis)behavior.

Pass out plenty of Kleenex and enjoy each nation's jeremiads, which you've heard ad nauseam before.

Russia perspective. These are the games nations have played for decades to justify their billions spent on costly weapons systems.

We're just more connected and demanding more transparency from our governments these days so we hear about the “close calls” and periodic confrontations and collisions. It’s just like children bullying each other on the playground and blaming the other, but with more deadly weapons.

It's important that economic sanctions be immediately, progressively, and continuously imposed on all unilaterally aggressive nations until every nations is convinced that unilateral aggression will bring only a certainty of international isolation and ruinous economic decline.

It seems useful to clarify that China likely views itself as emulating the globally hegemonic United States, which is perceived by some as a big kid quite capable of ignoring inconvenient international norms, customs, and law in pursuit of its national interests.

Stated differently, a global hegemon cannot effectively rely on the adage "do what I say, not as I do" and expect other nations to acquiesce or follow!

Admiral Willard has been appearing in a variety of forums talking on the challenges presented by our fast evolving global commons. Challenges that will require nations to jettison their obsolete confrontational models in favor of cooperative models, which by definition will require novel and heterodox thinking.

UPDATED 02/13/2011 The South China Sea: Troubled Waters Much of the dialog in this video has been overcome or altered by subsequent events, most notably President Hu Jintao's recent United States visit.

It seems useful to note that a young United States has also intervened to prevent modern China's dismemberment.

Rules based military management mechanisms now exists for avoiding unintended armed skirmishes in the East and South China Sea. Nations that want to change these rules must do so using responsible and persuasive arguments, which attracts a global consensus.

There is a vast difference between nations, which build aircraft carriers to enforce consensus rules and those building aircraft carries believing they can be used to change the rules. One is a stabilizing leader the other a destabilizing wannabe thug!

Many nations are cheering for China's responsible, peaceful, and harmonious (i.e. not coercive and confrontational) rise, but will oppose thuggery.

Hey, if China and United States (and others) continue uncontrollably spewing hydrocarbons into our atmosphere (UPDATED 07/25/2016 SA, Can Chemists Turn Pollution into Gold? and carbonXprize competition) land reclamation, map making and military skills could come in handy?

Not only must the East and South China Seas increased tension be on the Hiroshima-G-7 agenda, any joint statement must make clear that no nation is "too big" to impose economic sanctions on, including the United States.

Militarization of the East and South China Seas requires a combination of daftness, duplicitousness, deafness, deceptiveness, daringness, and dominance, which cooperating and collaborating nations are unlikely to long tolerate.

More international diplomats, please! If China's domestic economic waves begin to rival South China Sea waves it will not benefit the international community or global economy for the United States military to become a Chinese Communist Party "whipping boy".

It's important that our reputable news media outlets avoid sensational and inaccurate headlines. China did not "return fire"—its spokeswoman ham handedly articulated China's version of, it's the United States' that has militarized "our" South China Sea.

Patient, persistent, and principled diplomacy is not as sensational as turning a few sandcastle radar reclamation installations into a "firefight", but it will likely achieve preferable solutions and relationships.

Wonder when our reputable media outlets will learn to routinely contribute? As an aside if China and the US continue burning fossil fuel at current rates more than sea rock radars will become submerged sandcastles.

China's multi-thousand years history as a "Middle-Kingdom" will not be easily abandoned. Such notions are as obsolete as the equally bizarre notion popularly asserted by nations that their behavior (usually thuggish, boorish, regressive, oppressive, coercive etc.) is "purely or strictly their internal matter".

Neither notions (among others) are viable for any modern nation state desirous of effectively and constructively participating in our global economy.

There's a "night and day" difference between building infrastructure projects on the undisputed China mainland and unilaterally constructing land reclamation projects in disputed international waters.

Maybe, PLAN will help PLA understand these clear and critical "night and day" distinctions?

Of course, it's possible that the PLA understand these clear and critical "night and day" distinctions and has decided to implement a Chinese bullying and building land reclamation project in international waters?

It's difficult to reconcile China's rhetorical refusal to apply international law arbitration dispute resolution processes with its demand for peace and stability.

Of course China is not the only state to express a schizophrenic pursuit of peace and stability while simultaneously castigating and contravening rule of law concepts (e.g. current Russia-U.S.-Ukraine dispute and U.S. refusal to ratify Law of Sea Conventions etc.).

Kudos to State—we're not required to respond with force, violence, countermands or even interest to delegitimize another nation's unreasonable, unilateral, stupid or crazy actions (e.g. scrambling jets every time an aircraft enters an arbitrarily drawn or declared polyhedron over the China Sea).

Question Taken at the November 27, 2013 State Department Daily Press Briefing

Question: Is there any specific guidance or information we are giving to U.S. carriers operating in China's recently declared Air Defense Identification Zone (ADIZ)?

Answer: Freedom of overflight and other internationally lawful uses of sea and airspace are essential to prosperity, stability, and security in the Pacific. We remain deeply concerned by China's November 23 declaration of an "East China Sea Air Identification Zone."

The U.S. government generally expects that U.S. carriers operating internationally will operate consistent with NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen) issued by foreign countries. Our expectation of operations by U.S. carriers consistent with NOTAMs does not indicate U.S. government acceptance of China's requirements for operating in the newly declared ADIZ.

Who cares if China decides to arbitrarily draw and declare polyhedrons over all the world's oceans, then scrambles jets or issues press releases every time a bird flies into their arbitrarily drawn polyhedrons (preferably, issues press releases, which are less polluting than scrambling jets)?

Kudos to both nations for continuing to dialog while they challenge, bully and provoke each other to an equilibrium—the dialog should include the procedures that will be implemented when injury occurs.

It's disappointing, disgusting and childish that nations still challenge, bully and provoke each other in this manner—such is our "progress" over thousands of years!

Discussion includes segments on the diplomatic and definitional challenges related to the South China Sea among other security issues (i.e cyber which the chairman places high on his list).

It seems the new buzzwords are Asia pivot, transparency, partnership; old buzzwords power point presentation. Hopefully transparency and partnership, including with China will be as ubiquitous as power point presentation!

Firstly, China Is Not a superpower, it's a developing power and knows it. Secondly, all bullies think they own, rule and run an entire playground until they're ignored or provoke a punch in their nose. Thirdly, bullies learn to play nice when they're ignored (i.e. refuse to sign natural resource leases or recognize EEZ, or trade, or recognize midnight landings and radar stations build on rocks etc.) or provoke a punch in their nose.

A high probability of periodic playground fighting or provoking a punch in the nose is not “war” or justification for our bloated military budget nor is an arms race with China necessary to achieve beneficial and desirable South and East China Sea outcomes.

Our nation must immediately ratify the Law of the Sea Convention and continue to constructively coordinate adherence with the same by all nations, including China.

It will also be helpful if nations quit trying to have their cake and eat it too when it comes to dealing with China.

Secretary of State Clinton promotes America's Pacific Peaceful Playground Patrolling Strategy for the Asian Pacific commons—a strategy that must include a major, meaningful, measurable and sustained China contribution.

She has been awesome but our nation must practice transparency in lieu of lecturing about transparency, which must include disclosing the opaque ways of friends and foes.

The authors acknowledge some aspects of their proposed strategy require war gaming—hopefully those conducting the war games will recruit the participation of many first grade teachers with significant experience patrolling playgrounds.

Regional nations are beginning to assert their UNCLOS rights that conflict with China's unilateral and expansive South China Sea claim.

Some of the nations' actions are comic (e.g. building a radar station on rocks that are periodically submerged by tide and wave action; sending monks to live on semi-submerged rocks). Others actions are threatening, provocative, or confrontational (e.g. harassing, impairing and capturing vessels; detaining sailors; impairing or impeding exploitation of other nation's UNCLOS economic zones).

Understandably, but unreasonably China expects its less powerful regional neighbor nations to surrender their UNCLOS rights to its historic (but not historical) interpretation and growing regional economic clout.

Our navy has the thankless job of ensuring conflicting UNCLOS claims do not disrupt the global commons (i.e. peacefully discuss and settle)—a thankless job that does not require the Seventh Fleet or a carrier strike group.

Interestingly (or ironically depending on your perspective), recent reports indicate China's state controlled media has begun making the argument (probably for internal consumption) that the returns on Middle East political transitions are negative—unfortunately, China provides no specific from their dramatic "cost-benefit analysis" (great claims require great proof).

Cooperation from Strength is an aphorism for the expenditures on an expansive naval fleet to perpetuate our unilateral global police power. An aphorism that is more nonsensical and discouraging of cooperation than "mistress marriage maintenance".

Cooperation from Strength simply complains that China uses economic coercion on the South China Sea disputants and others; opportunistically substitutes its domestic law for international law; increased its expenditures on military development; and free rides on our heretofore unilateral provision of global police power (the first three complaints are tactics not unfamiliar to our nation and the last is exactly what Cooperation from Strength seeks to perpetuate!).

Not sure how the above complaints justify the expenditures on an expansive naval fleet to perpetuate our unilateral global police power? The complaints seem more supportive of the need to develop a multilateral cooperative framework.

China and U.S. are behaving like disillusioned partners trying to figure out whether their efforts are worth it.

It's reminiscent of the recent Mainland rafter who attempted to float across the Taiwan Strait to observe Taiwan's upcoming democratic elections. Only to be intercepted at sea, arrested, and deported back to the Mainland by Taiwan.

The rafter cursing democracy and deportation while a democratic Taiwan wonders how its defenses will next be tested. Both interpreting the rare and foolish event as further reason to distrust the other and question the partnership.

"The People's Liberation Army Chief of General Staff Chen Bingde arrives in Washington D.C. on Sunday for a week-long trip to the United States, the highest level visit there by a Chinese uniformed military commander since 2009."--Reuters--

"...China bears a responsibility, given its growing economic power, growing diplomatic power globally and growing military, to be a greater contributor to the overall security--of not only the Asia-Pacific but elsewhere--brought about by its many elements of national power...."--USPACCOM, Admiral Willard--

U.S.-China on-off military-military-dialogue and cooperation has lagged our robust continuous and contiguous diplomatic-economic-dialogue and cooperation. Parity or near parity must be reached to ensure a strategic stability in South East Asia and adjacent seas.

"President Barack Obama has urged China to work with the US to send 'a clear message' to North Korea that its provocations against South Korea are 'unacceptable'."--BBC quoting President Obama--

"Unacceptable" is diplomatic speak for "will no longer be tolerated" and is not unlike a red blinking light. It's simultaneously fortunate and unfortunate that nations push their aggressive or assertive behavior just short of the solid red light—the fundamental reasons are simultaneously simple and complex!

Perhaps next week when China meets with North Korea and the United States separately meets with Japan and South Korea all involved will "discover" ways to better spend their time and resources than reciprocating naval exercises. Wasting time and resources threatening to club each other does not seem like an optimal method for solving complex global issues?

UPDATED 11/04/2010 NYT, China Stages Naval Exercises. ...more ridiculous reciprocating playground provocation from our fearful leaders children6—while Russia engages in East China Sea rock hopping and missile shots from the Barents and Okhotsk Seas. ...can we give our leaders a time-out or send them to their rooms—no spanking, it's part of the problem?

UPDATED 10/05/2010 Newsweek, A Beijing Backlash. A tersely informative article by Issac Stone Fish—hopefully he will pen more articles on the interesting, important, and developing U.S.-China relationship. Fortunately, our Secretary of State and defense leadership show every indication of teaming to deal with China's authoritarian CCP leadership in an "Iran smart" way. Perhaps, China-U.S. can pioneer new and evolving methods of cooperative-competition that do not require usage or threats of weaponry—that nations (collection of individuals) must still seek to develop weaponry speaks volumes! (in case you forgot how much is spent on such foolishness here's a couple of handy charts courtesy of Time Blog Swampland.)

“...to have these [South China Sea] disputes solved peacefully through friendly consultations in the interest of peace and stability in the South China Sea and good neighborly relations,”--NYT, quoting China Foreign Minister Yang Jiechi--

The blog post credits the argument that America (not China) is substituting military intimidation and bullying for lack of competitiveness (interestingly and encouragingly China and the US are using different facts to accuse each other of the same behavior). China’s assertion will have more credibility when (if) its currency is free floating, prices are not imputed, and trade-barriers reduced or eliminated. Nevertheless, the point that the U.S. and China should be cooperating and refraining from provoking or antagonize each other is difficult to dispute.

UPDATED 07/24/2010 NYT, Offering to Aid Talks, U.S. Challenges China on Disputed Islands. Kudos to our Secretary of State for offering to help define and stabilize disputed international South China Sea boundaries. China (or other nations) should not substitute bullying for discussions and consensus simply because another nation does not or cannot use force to differentiate commons from national interests and international boundaries. In this regard our leadership must immediately ratify the latest Law of the Sea conventions, clarifying if necessary.

UPDATED 02/05/2010 Economist, By fits and starts. Mostly fits right now. Unfortunately China leaders like our leaders will tend toward stoking the nationalism rhetoric. The rhetoric can be dangerous because it substitutes emotional appeasement for doing the heavy lifting required for long-term sustainable solutions. Many times leaders of a nation cynically use nationalism believing they can control the passions. But such passions are difficult to control once stoked. Citizens in both China and America must condemn any effort by our leaders to substitute nationalism for the hard work of ensuring sustainable global growth. Protectionism or terminating dialogue or inflammatory rhetoric regardless of the differences or disagreements are nationalistic and impede sustainable global growth.

UPDATED 01/30/2010 Reuters, China threatens U.S. with sanctions on Taiwan arms and U.S. Regrets China's Response to Arms Sales. U.S. to fill Taiwan's purchase order (see DID, Taiwan’s (Un?)Stalled Force Modernization) for defensive systems to counter mainland missiles aimed at Taiwan and China's increased South and East China Seas assertiveness (some might say aggressiveness). Beyond routine and proforma expressions of displeasure China and the U.S. are expected to continue cooperation. It seems a little contradictory, if not bemusing that China would plead the ineffectiveness of sanctions on Iran's behalf and then threaten the use of sanctions against others. It's also difficult to see how stopping some China-U.S. military dialogue and cooperation is helpful.

Other South China Sea (below southern tip of Taiwan) and East China Sea (above southern tip of Taiwan) Incidents:

UPDATED 01/14/2010 Time, China and Vietnam: Clashing Over an Island Archipelago. This is part of China's continuing efforts to expand and assert its sovereignty within the South China Sea (each habitable island comes with protected zones). If you use bullying or force to acquire or retain an island others are unlikely to recognize or honor the protected zones associated with that island. China's recent bullying of its smaller regional partner (Vietnam) is troubling—professing harmony while bullying is unseemly, unconvincing, and will only provoke push back.

"Everyone's aware that China is a rising power of the 21st century,....But people want to see the United States fully engaged in Asia, so that as China rises the United States is there as a force for peace....What I'm expecting is that we actually are having a mature relationship,....That means that it doesn't go off the rails when we have differences of opinion."--WP quoting Secretary of State Hillary Clinton--

UPDATED 06/24/2009 China Daily, Disputes at sea float to surface Under Secretary of Defense for Policy, Michele Flournoy and delegation head to China for two-day routine confidence building military talks (10th Defense Consultative Talks). South China Sea, Korean Peninsula, Proliferation, and Pirates are likely to be among the agenda items.

UPDATED 05/07/2009 UPI, Chinese fishing vessels confront US ship. China and U.S. have agreed to disagree on what activity is permitted by convention in a nation's economic zone as opposed to its 12 limit. Each continuing to make their point in non-harmful or non-threatening ways (if somewhat lacking in professional seamanship). Significantly, the USS Victorious (a sibling of the Impeccable) was unaccompanied by any American warships and radioed to Chinese ships for help in warding off its two harassing vessels—both vessels left shortly after the radio call for help.

UPDATED 03/12/2009 TaipeiTimes, Taiwan ‘driving Chinese military goals’. Certainly China is obsessed with Taiwan, but that begs the question, why? China likely feels "contained" and views Taiwan and their Texas size definition of sovereignty (China would like to define everything within the first island chain as sovereign China, not just the South China Sea.) as necessary to mitigate those feelings.

The question keeping Admiral Keating up at night is whether China intends to impose their definition of sovereignty by force or consensus.

The question keeping China up at night is how much it can provoke the United States without generating an all out China containment response—a disaster for both countries, but especially for China. In this context China's military opaqueness will increase distrust and surveillance missions. Transparency and candidness are keys to our mutually beneficial, and respectful partnership.

Without transparency, candidness, and trust a mutually beneficial and respectful partnership is impossible—Keating will continue trying to figure out how many SSNs and SSBNs he has to sink should China miscalculate how much it can provoke the United States.

Cute statements analogies about thiefs outside your bamboo fence are unlikely to be interpreted as transparency, candidness or trust.

UPDATED 03/11/2009 BBC, US-China talks as sea row rumbles. Much of this can be attributed to China's inexperience relating to other nations—it's classic China to define sovereignty like Texans—then become offended when others ignore their Texas size definition of sovereignty.

It seems beneficial that China has begun partnering and interacting with other nations, particularly us—its preference and tendency favors withdrawal behind walls where sovereignty and interaction can be strictly regulated, controlled, and limited. It also seems likely that there will be more periodic, inept, abrasiveness events as China figures out the quality and quantity of its global interaction—taking shots at responsible power nations is fun until you're a responsible power nation (then you squirt water with fire hoses instead of conducting oppressive campaigns and massacres). Ironically, a responsible power nation quickly learns just how little sovereignty they have—unless you define sovereignty as mess management and paying for the cost of mismanaged mess clean-up!

National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair told the U.S. Congress the Chinese have become more assertive in staking claims to international waters around economic zones and were "more military, aggressive, forward-looking than we saw a couple years before" in Southeast Asia and the South China Sea. Blair said it was unclear whether Beijing would use its growing military power "for good or pushing people around."--Reuters quoting Blair--

The purpose of the surveillance is likely to aid in regional littoral submarine and anti-submarine warfare should war occur between China and the United States or a regional ally. Fortunately, China and United States are currently increasing their dialogue and searching for ways to increase military transparency and engage in confidence building cooperation.

The Yellow Sea is a "sensitive area" primarily because of ship building, including submarines, submarine base and the potential for using the Yellow Sea as a submarine bastion for China's ballistic missile submarines (SSBN).

3. Both the NYT and Reuters are now reporting 25 feet not yards.

4. Acoustically this is a very challenging environment requiring a significant amount of surveying, mapping, and modeling to understand.

5. It's likely not an accident that China is interfering with surveying and mapping by destroying the towed acoustical array. China’s efforts to interfere with transparent surveying and mapping of international waters seem counter productive, unnecessarily confrontational, irresponsible, unprofessional, and potentially fatal to both the submarine and submariners.

6. The criticism is not directed at the evolutionary logic leading to the mine-is-bigger-than your-behavior, but at our persistent lack of learning. Stated differently, we are not constrained to behave like alpha goats head butting each other to preserve the grass eating order—in some cases head butting that occurs in the middle of hectares of edible grass!